Setting aside the question of whether they want to be the absolute market share leader or not, it is absolutely, totally, completely and unequivocally wrong that they regard customers lost to Android with indifference. There is no possibility that that is true.

They may not want all of the lost customers, and they may make higher profits with what remains, and it may be true that Android competition is turning Apple's profits into no one's profits, but none of that disputes that it's a problem that's important for Apple to address.

For now they have not budged with their pricing. At all. Not even a little. The single only thing they've done is introduce a new cheaper price point for older models. I'm not saying they don't care, they probably do. And they must be very afraid of the commoditization of smartphones in general, that'll eat their margins right off. But they have not responded to the competition by aggressively lowering prices. That's a race they'd surely lose.

For now they have not budged with their pricing. At all. Not even a little.

Agreed, but the possibility and motivations for doing so are pretty much what we're talking about here.

tstm wrote:

But they have not responded to the competition by aggressively lowering prices. That's a race they'd surely lose.

I don't think that's necessarily what's suggested here, just adopting pricing that's appropriate for the way people globally and increasingly in the US buy phones.

Most subsidized phones expose a price of $200 or in some extreme examples $300 to the consumer. Phones like the Nexus 4 encroach on the subsidized price range with an unlocked, no contract price, but still with a high quality phone with great user experience. I think that's an important step. Now you can argue Apple can extend that price range, and I'd probably agree with you, but what happens with $700 iPhones with prepaid being widespread is a whole lotta Android.

If the technology has naturally matured and lower prices with a great experience are now possible, that's somewhere Apple is going to have to go eventually, even though they will never go to prices low enough that they have to seriously compromise.

For now they have not budged with their pricing. At all. Not even a little.

Agreed, but the possibility and motivations for doing so are pretty much what we're talking about here.

tstm wrote:

But they have not responded to the competition by aggressively lowering prices. That's a race they'd surely lose.

I don't think that's necessarily what's suggested here, just adopting pricing that's appropriate for the way people globally and increasingly in the US buy phones.

Most subsidized phones expose a price of $200 or in some extreme examples $300 to the consumer. Phones like the Nexus 4 encroach on the subsidized price range with an unlocked, no contract price, but still with a high quality phone with great user experience. I think that's an important step. Now you can argue Apple can extend that price range, and I'd probably agree with you, but what happens with $700 iPhones with prepaid being widespread is a whole lotta Android.

If the technology has naturally matured and lower prices with a great experience are now possible, that's somewhere Apple is going to have to go eventually, even though they will never go to prices low enough that they have to seriously compromise.

The thing is, investors love apple for their fat margins, and if things keep going the way google wants to, those margins will either go lower or they will have to compromise.

If the technology has naturally matured and lower prices with a great experience are now possible, that's somewhere Apple is going to have to go eventually, even though they will never go to prices low enough that they have to seriously compromise.

Is a premise of your argument that no hardware improvement in phones is possible or needed? That is, that Apple won't be able to justify its higher prices over time? I'm not asking because I think that the view is wrong, but I think it is debatable.

If the technology has naturally matured and lower prices with a great experience are now possible, that's somewhere Apple is going to have to go eventually, even though they will never go to prices low enough that they have to seriously compromise.

Is a premise of your argument that no hardware improvement in phones is possible or needed?

The boundaries are fuzzier than that, and the onset of the situation is gradual. Improvement is still in demand, and still possible, but it's a lot harder to give people something they'll pay extra for.

Look at any industry you want, prices fall when you get into that situation. Unless you have a market failure like a monopoly, and thankfully phones are still competitive.

dh87 wrote:

That is, that Apple won't be able to justify its higher prices over time?

I think it can justify a relatively steady premium over time, but falling Android prices and losing the buttressing effect from subsidies means Apple's premium is increasing over time even if they keep their prices constant.

I think it's more likely that a cheaper/mini iPhone appears in the form of an iWatch or iBand (which sounds a lot more modern than anything associated with a watch) that could function as both a basic phone+ and as a limited front end to a linked smartphone or tablet or even a desktop or some other device.

So it's both a wristphone and a front-end to a smartphone? I don't see how it would be feasible to have two phones share one number, and I don't see how a watch-sized batter could squeeze in phone technology and the tech to be a front-end to a smartphone and have any reasonable battery life.

Call forwarding? And maybe the device obviates the need for a phone and a wrist-thing, and most could get by with just a tablet (stashed in a bag or car, or left at home) and a wrist-thing. That doesn't seem like a big leap to me.

I think it's more likely that a cheaper/mini iPhone appears in the form of an iWatch or iBand (which sounds a lot more modern than anything associated with a watch) that could function as both a basic phone+ and as a limited front end to a linked smartphone or tablet or even a desktop or some other device.

So it's both a wristphone and a front-end to a smartphone? I don't see how it would be feasible to have two phones share one number, and I don't see how a watch-sized batter could squeeze in phone technology and the tech to be a front-end to a smartphone and have any reasonable battery life.

Call forwarding?

Call forwarding requires two separate phone numbers, and therefore two separate phone plans. Who on earth would want that, in addition to spending hundreds on an iWatch?

slowereastside wrote:

And maybe the device obviates the need for a phone and a wrist-thing, and most could get by with just a tablet (stashed in a bag or car, or left at home) and a wrist-thing. That doesn't seem like a big leap to me.

Smartphones are popular because of the smart part, not the phone part. Most people don't want to buy a wristphone with a tiny battery and also have to carry around an iPad too (most of which are WiFi-only anyway). And those who have a 3G iPad (plus plan) who want to dump their phones (why?) for a tiny wristphone are surely an infinitesimally tiny market. Does not compute.

Yeah, that's much better...more like the iBand I was promoting and less like an ancient watch (strap + box).

Quote:

Call forwarding requires two separate phone numbers, and therefore two separate phone plans. Who on earth would want that, in addition to spending hundreds on an iWatch?

Nope. The new device could just have a data plan and an iCloud VoIP number. Voice plans are a vestige of another time anyway, data plans will soon swallow 'em up.

Quote:

Smartphones are popular because of the smart part, not the phone part.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Pre-smart tech, in the developed world, a mobile phone was a widely affordable luxury ('everyone' had one prior to smart phones and phone booths became dinosaurs). Meanwhile, in the developing world, mobile phone use exploded because the tech leap frogged a very limited land-line infrastructure and was more of a necessity; people who never hand a phone at home, got a mobile. So pre-smart phone, for different econ reasons, you already had a world gone or in the process of going mobile (where mobile really meant phone).

The smart part was a terrific evolutionary step in mobile phone tech (pocket computer + phone) and yeah, of course, we bought them because of the smart part. Totally agree there. But now the economics are such that increasingly everyone is getting an affordable pocket computer whether or not they want or will fully use one, because it is attached to the phone part everyone still needs (and in the developed world where ordinary people have ditched their landlines, the mobile phone has also become a necessity). That's the real fuel behind smart phone popularity today.

So across different markets, the phone part is still here and hanging on and it is the defining difference between a tablet and a smart phone.

This is where I see an iBand coming into play. As I'm imagining it, it would be a relatively cheap ($200 to $300-ish) standalone phone that provides basic smart features (email/texts/tweets, weather, geo-loc, music), Siri, and could link to another device in order to function as a limited front end. For Apple, the iBand would allow them to address two key of markets simultaneously: the low end market that just wants a phone and some feature phone features and the device saturated market that sometimes wants the same thing plus a lightweight ability to remotely connect to their other devices.

I still think the game changer here, even above price, would be if Apple were to allow an iBand to connect to non-Apple devices a la iPod/iTunes. I don't see a downside there for them if they could pull off a device like I'm describing.

Well for the primary phone needs it sounds like anything in the price range could fit the bill there, while presumably a watch/band type would get more hype behind it as something new I guess.

My main concern with that form factor would be phone usage as a primary device unless it's speakerphone only (which would raise its own issue) and/or is meant to be paired with a headset (with some other possible acceptance issues). Holding your wrist up to your ear isn't the most natural feeling position. Unwrapping the band to use it as a long stick phone or something would be cumbersome too.

I could see it as a supplementary or standalone smart device, but as a standalone phone I think it'd falter, so if that's their target market for whatever cheaper phone I'm not sure they'd use that.

Well for the primary phone needs it sounds like anything in the price range could fit the bill there, while presumably a watch/band type would get more hype behind it as something new I guess.

My main concern with that form factor would be phone usage as a primary device unless it's speakerphone only (which would raise its own issue) and/or is meant to be paired with a headset (with some other possible acceptance issues). Holding your wrist up to your ear isn't the most natural feeling position. Unwrapping the band to use it as a long stick phone or something would be cumbersome too.

I could see it as a supplementary or standalone smart device, but as a standalone phone I think it'd falter, so if that's their target market for whatever cheaper phone I'm not sure they'd use that.

And why get one with so many limitations when you can get a cheap android phone that albeit a bit slow can do everything.

There are a couple of wristwatch phones out now and the talk time is 2 hours at most. There's only so much you can do with a tiny battery. An iWatch will almost certainly be an adjunct to iOS devices, not primarily a phone in itself.

The only interesting thing about a band/watch as an information device would be if it presented information only you could see so you could surreptitiously while away boring meetings or lunches or whatever but then you'd need special glasses which might as well be the product a la google glasses anyway.

I could see it successful as jewelry at the right price point but that's never been Apple's forte and I'm not sure that's a business Apple should have any interest in anyway.

There isn't fundamentally anything wrong with Apple's current phone strategy but it seemingly leaves the majority of the growth opportunity on the table. As Apple is better able than most to leverage existing customers into profits via iTunes, et al a cheaper phone device that let them address that market makes sense. Cook needs to stop praying at the alter of high margins and embrace the post-sale revenue model to some extent. That and give up some supply chain advantage to address more customers via size options. In addition to the cheap cost-reduced iPhone, a real big screen (not just bigger pixels) and a smaller 3.5" screen as premium devices also seem like opportunities. The retina iPad mini is as close as it gets to a sure thing if they can roll it out at the same everything + A6x.

Long term it'd be nice to have a defining new product but just not getting into the blood bath that is physical television sales is probably worth a lot. A better stb that had an app ecosystem is long overdue, though now it's going to face a lot brawnier competition from Sony and MS. While the Jobsian ideal of a modernist aluminum slab display with built-in whatever and a huge margin because it's Apple is no doubt appealing it's also not realistic. Prices on displays have crashed because people are willing to trade quality for price and even Sony is better off just not making them anymore. Even if Apple could do all they want and make a small profit wouldn't that money better be used elsewhere?

I could see it as a supplementary or standalone smart device, but as a standalone phone I think it'd falter, so if that's their target market for whatever cheaper phone I'm not sure they'd use that.

I also don't think a wrist-device would be aimed at being a cheaper phone than the iPhone. It could be the way to add functionnalities to other devices, and work in synergy with them.

jsolares wrote:

why get one with so many limitations when you can get a cheap android phone that albeit a bit slow can do everything.

You often not only own a smartphone but also a tablet or a Mac.I posted this in another thread:

Spoiler: show

How I see an Apple wrist-device could be useful for, the point wouldn't be to replace larger screen devices; a watch-sized device can't. The idea could be to refactor things.

The article only present in general a gadget with no real problem to solve, and got it wrong on the Radio topic I think: it would not be to have "Yay, another data plan!" but rather have only one data plan, for every mobile device iPhone+iPad+laptop (one per user, no more one per device).

That wrist device could be used for things like Siri or sensor stuffs or for notifications on the tiny screen, but the main purpose could be to serve as a communication hub between user's mobile devices, including network access and identification, through Bluetooth or any adequate protocol.

Then, there is battery concerns.Can a wrist-device offer enough power for 1 day of idle connection to mobile network, how much power is drained on idle on average? Then, how much more power is drained simply on incoming calls and not even responding?Could mobile connection circuitry in iPhones/iPads be replaced by an efficient wireless charging unit, to be able to drain battery from the device in use to charge the wrist-device during connection/call use [and added in Macs]?

IF (uppercase is probably not big enough) all that could be possible, the wrist-device could then solve the problem of having to deal with multiple phone/data plans, it could solve the problem of access to network in mobile environment, it could solve the problem of identification to devices (granted the user could be identified by some magic biometric sensors on the wrist-device then able to recognize its user: hold the device and get instant login as it receives your ID sent by the wrist-device).As no device in control could be around at the moment of a call for example, the wrist-device would have to be able to record and inform the user of every network activity (think calls/SMS or iCloud), and send notfication to any controlled iPhone/iPad/Mac as entering in its field.

It wouldn't be an accessory/companion/gadget, it would be at the center of all mobile devices used: always with the user, identified to him.An iPhone would either be seen as only a big handeld mic or a mini-tablet, fusionning with the iPod Touch. You could even imagine calls with the wrist-device only (through integrated mic, or with an earpiece to also wirelessly charge, or simply the EarPods), if any controlled device is close to the user to offer its battery life.

If battery/charge problems are solvables (and so, then, every devices used are like wireless-batteries for the wrist-device),you could imagine Apple then able to simplify all its mobile line, with no more LTE/3G-capable device other than the wrist-device. A standalone iPhone line could still make sense, but otherwise, you could imagine iPod nanos, touch, iPad mini, regular, any Mac capable to communicate with and take advantage of the wrist-device.Then, if you own any of these Apple devices capable to 1. charge wirelessly the wrist-device 2. communicate in BT with the wrist-device, you'd only need to buy it to turn your device(s) into a phone, or gain access to a data connection anywhere.

It would offer in one shot a solution for many discussed situations in this thread (and more).You don't need a smartphone but own an iPod nano? you can now make calls with it if you buy the iWrist.You have a tablet (including the iPod Touch) and don't want to either carry a smartphone or deal with mutiple plans? buy the iWristYou need a data connection with you Mac laptop when on the go or want to be able to make calls directly with it? buy the iWristetc.

Anyone owning at least one compatible device could be interested in this wrist-device, and anyone owning a wrist-device would be interested to rather also own Apple devices (in any category) than an xyz smartphone, tablet or PC.

I think the problem with that would be that it's pushing an important core functionality (connectivity) into an additional supplemental device...and a lot of it would work with just the iPhone to begin with, or ideally devices would just communicate amongst themselves without the need for a singular "hub" at all, and at that point the band would essentially act as a glorified hot spot. It's not necessarily simplifying anything cause the minimum number of devices you'd need to carry becomes two (band + other device) rather than just one iPhone. Sure it'd get rid of cell variants but the whole point of those is so you don't need to rely on another device to get online, moving the connection into a wristband probably wouldn't quell that desire.

But if the main push is as a phone, it should be a better phone rather than just a tack on secondary feature.

I agree but that could mean a few things. It could mean a relatively cheap off contract phone. It could mean the phone's form lets you thoughtlessly take it running, biking, swimming. It could mean a phone that has just enough smart-ish qualities (for an adult and a teenager) that it becomes a good enough replacement for your more capable but more expensive, bulkier model.

Cook has talked about Apple cannibalizing itself. Would he put the iPhone on the table now?

To be fair with the band idea, if it's going to be for areas where they have little iPhone penetration to begin with it's not really cannibalization, and in established markets I imagine it'd have more appeal as an iDevice accessory than a standalone device. For adults/teens I'm thinking it'd be an issue standalone if it made texting and pictures difficult or impossible, like Siri is only usable where you can talk, while texting is useful cause you can be slightly discreet* and communicate without talking at all. And well, people like taking pictures. (*Well it's usually obvious but at least you're being quiet.)

Whatever the case I think they'd be willing to cannibalize it, albeit it's not like it's their intention as much as attempts at expanding their market. Cannibalization is just a possible side effect, and probably acceptable when it does grow beyond what they would have otherwise, vs something like Mac cloning that just ate them up without growing the market much if at all. I think it'd be a compatible iOS (UI) device though rather than something entirely different to keep iOS growing rather than fracturing and cannibalizing that.

I think the problem with that would be that it's pushing an important core functionality (connectivity) into an additional supplemental device...and a lot of it would work with just the iPhone to begin with, or ideally devices would just communicate amongst themselves without the need for a singular "hub" at all, and at that point the band would essentially act as a glorified hot spot. It's not necessarily simplifying anything cause the minimum number of devices you'd need to carry becomes two (band + other device) rather than just one iPhone. Sure it'd get rid of cell variants but the whole point of those is so you don't need to rely on another device to get online, moving the connection into a wristband probably wouldn't quell that desire.

I fully agree that a standalone iPhone could still have its place if Apple was going with the conceptual wrist-device I was trying to describe. But not necessarily in the long-term in fact, as smartphone users also often own at least a tablet or a laptop, or will, and then a wrist-device in the middle could appear more convenient and the iPhone to be replaced by users with a pocketable micro-tablet/pad/pod if necessary (either a limited iPod nano-like device, or a more versatile iPod Touch-like device).

There is no magical device that can do all, a laptop doesn't fit in a pocket, a tablet can't fully replace a PC, a pocketable smartphone is limited by its screen size yet it's the only one I can use walking in the streets. etc.Still, all of them are useful, and we'll probably all continue to have to own different devices to use on purpose.

Then, there is the mobility factor, and the always more important need to access to a connection everywhere. Voice calls probably don't represent the most part of usages for most smartphone users, and probably always less as time pass. And I don't see as a good solution to have to subscribe to N mobile/data plans for N devices.

I read and take with a grain of salt people saying they don't use watches anymore. Maybe that's a generational thing (hell I'm from the early 80's and have always worn watches, and not for some fashion/jewelry thing. As basical to me, and unnoticeable, as to wear socks. You don't remember you are wearing a watch unless you look at it), or maybe a US vs "old world" thing, or I don't know, but to have to wear on my wrist a watch-sized device that could bring connectivity everywhere with any of my devices used wouldn't appear to me as a problem at all. That appears way more practical than having to rely on my smartphone + tethering connection for my laptop or tablet (and then that's still 2 devices).

With that conceptual wrist-device, the phone would be dematerialised, and could materialise in any device used, with each their limitations and advantages.

I think the problem with that would be that it's pushing an important core functionality (connectivity) into an additional supplemental device...and a lot of it would work with just the iPhone to begin with, or ideally devices would just communicate amongst themselves without the need for a singular "hub" at all, and at that point the band would essentially act as a glorified hot spot. It's not necessarily simplifying anything cause the minimum number of devices you'd need to carry becomes two (band + other device) rather than just one iPhone. Sure it'd get rid of cell variants but the whole point of those is so you don't need to rely on another device to get online, moving the connection into a wristband probably wouldn't quell that desire.

I fully agree that a standalone iPhone could still have its place if Apple was going with the conceptual wrist-device I was trying to describe. But not necessarily in the long-term in fact, as smartphone users also often own at least a tablet or a laptop, or will, and then a wrist-device in the middle could appear more convenient and the iPhone to be replaced by users with a pocketable micro-tablet/pad/pod if necessary (either a limited iPod nano-like device, or a more versatile iPod Touch-like device).

There is no magical device that can do all, a laptop doesn't fit in a pocket, a tablet can't fully replace a PC, a pocketable smartphone is limited by its screen size yet it's the only one I can use walking in the streets. etc.Still, all of them are useful, and we'll probably all continue to have to own different devices to use on purpose.

Then, there is the mobility factor, and the always more important need to access to a connection everywhere. Voice calls probably don't represent the most part of usages for most smartphone users, and probably always less as time pass. And I don't see as a good solution to have to subscribe to N mobile/data plans for N devices.

I read and take with a grain of salt people saying they don't use watches anymore. Maybe that's a generational thing (hell I'm from the early 80's and have always worn watches, and not for some fashion/jewelry thing. As basical to me, and unnoticeable, as to wear socks. You don't remember you are wearing a watch unless you look at it), or maybe a US vs "old world" thing, or I don't know, but to have to wear on my wrist a watch-sized device that could bring connectivity everywhere with any of my devices used wouldn't appear to me as a problem at all. That appears way more practical than having to rely on my smartphone + tethering connection for my laptop or tablet (and then that's still 2 devices).

With that conceptual wrist-device, the phone would be dematerialised, and could materialise in any device used, with each their limitations and advantages.

I'm with japtor on this. Splitting functionality between multiple devices may have some advantages, but none overweighs the fundamental advantage of the pocketable mobile phone - that you are always likely to have it with you.

One device to carry.

One device to charge.

One device to pay network charges for.

Having ancillary devices to act as remote cameras/notifications/etc. is fine, but at the present state of technology centering around the mobile phone makes the most sense.

at the present state of technology centering around the mobile phone makes the most sense.

Yes of course. Sorry if it wasn't clear, it's of course placed in a future/imaginary time when wireless charging is common and efficient; that's probably not 2013.As the discussion deviated to the iWatch thing, I was just exposing how I could see it go if tech allowed it, as I always only see presented the iWatch as a gadget with no big appeal to me. I was making it especially necessary.

Sulis wrote:

Splitting functionality between multiple devices may have some advantages, but none overweighs the fundamental advantage of the pocketable mobile phone - that you are always likely to have it with you.

I see no difference between having to carry only a smartphone and having to carry a smartphone while wearing a device on my wrist. Not only because I already wear a watch today that I'd have to replace or not, but because it kinda makes part of the body once attached; I can carry any device I want after that.

More likely than not, the iPhone Mini will basically be an iPod touch with a 3G-only cellular radio. It is significantly thinner and lighter than an iPhone 5, and comes in multiple colors with an attractive wrist strap.

It makes a lot of sense given $299 since last September from Apple buys you an iPod with hardware better than the iPhone 4S (which, unlocked, is still more expensive and not 32GB).

More likely than not, the iPhone Mini will basically be an iPod touch with a 3G-only cellular radio.

This has been suggested before. The problem it runs into is that it's very hard to explain a concept that adds a cell radio to an iPod without ending up with something that's indistinguishable from an iPhone.

No one seems to be able to suggest something iPhones have that this concept could leave out that would save money. I guess LTE's become more important since the last time we had this conversation, and that could be left out, but there's already iPhones that don't have LTE so I'm still left wondering how this is different than what's already out there.

But if the main push is as a phone, it should be a better phone rather than just a tack on secondary feature.

I agree but that could mean a few things. It could mean a relatively cheap off contract phone.... Cook has talked about Apple cannibalizing itself. Would he put the iPhone on the table now?

Steve Jobs himself said, "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will." It's a classic lesson taught in MBA schools, and that's where I heard it more than two decades ago. It's no special lesson or idea in 2013.

It will definitely not be merely a cheap off-contract phone. Among other things, Apple is gunning for greater sales penetration in China, where incomes are substantially lower than in USA/Europe but where purchasers tend to dislike buying last-gen products. For this reason, the rumors about a smaller, cheaper iPhone mini makes sense. More likely that it has 3GS/4 technology in a smaller size, with limited or no choice in storage capacity, with the 'classic' smaller iPhone screen (perhaps non-Retina) a less expensive yet durable case (possibly in colors) -- a less expensive product that is nevertheless 'new' and more attractive to emerging markets. And it would be available everywhere, plausibly replacing the previous-gen iPhones that currently 'sell' for free or cheap with phone contracts. doing so would be a move that consolidated the number of models in production (which involves savings in inventory, parts-buying, and production) while also opening itself to a larger market and more sales.

More likely that it has 3GS/4 technology in a smaller size, with limited or no choice in storage capacity, with the 'classic' smaller iPhone screen (perhaps non-Retina) a less expensive yet durable case (possibly in colors) -- a less expensive product that is nevertheless 'new' and more attractive to emerging markets.

Steve Jobs himself said, "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will." It's a classic lesson taught in MBA schools, and that's where I heard it more than two decades ago. It's no special lesson or idea in 2013.

Yeah, dude, I agree. . .

Quote:

When we came out with the iPad, what did people worry about? They thought, 'Oh my god, you're going to kill the Mac. What have you done?' The cannibalization question raises its head a lot. The truth is that we don't really think about it that much," Cook said. "Our basic belief is that if we don't cannibalize, someone else will."

That's Cook in the recent GS thing.

As for the other stuff, it's hard for me to imagine Apple addressing an obvious market in an obvious way that necessarily limits appeal. A pared down iPhone that doesn't offer anything novel, that doesn't blur demos, doesn't sound like Apple to me.

More likely that it has 3GS/4 technology in a smaller size, with limited or no choice in storage capacity, with the 'classic' smaller iPhone screen (perhaps non-Retina) a less expensive yet durable case (possibly in colors) -- a less expensive product that is nevertheless 'new' and more attractive to emerging markets.

Some news that could support a cheap phone like you describe, even slighlty better than a 4. But I still don't see it as the right way to go, they don't need/want to target the lower-end.It could be better to answer to people wanting to choose between a small great iPhone and a larger great iPhone with some price differentiation too, rather than offering a choice between two similar sizes of iPhone, but one clunky slow and cheap plastic variant and an expensive high-end one, for the simple sake of more marketshare in emerging markets.

Another way to see this move to a smaller single-core A5 is -as discussed two pages ago- once the iPad 2 is not produced anymore, and with the iPad Mini and the iPod Touch likely switching to an A6 variant on next iteration this year, while the 4S would be replaced by a cheaper iPhone new model at the next revision, the aTV would remain as the only A5 based device. And Apple then needed that redesigned chip version.

More likely than not, the iPhone Mini will basically be an iPod touch with a 3G-only cellular radio.

This has been suggested before. The problem it runs into is that it's very hard to explain a concept that adds a cell radio to an iPod without ending up with something that's indistinguishable from an iPhone.

No one seems to be able to suggest something iPhones have that this concept could leave out that would save money.

Still on these two lines of iPhones,The iPod Touch turned into a phone seems to me like the natural thing to come, eventually even with a complete cancellation of the iPod Touch line at some point. The iPod Touch this year being a first iteration of this new design, a first attempt before the phone variation.The iPhone 5 is too complex to manufacture, a simplified-to-build iPhone 5 in the shape of an iPod Touch could be the path to get a cheaper iPhone line, and easily produced in large quantities. Also, looking cheaper than the more desirable more expensive high-end line.

For the high-end model to differentiate, I propose a new solution =)Apple imposing to devs to support two screen ratios recently could indicate they plan to keep different iPhones with different screen ratios, and not only to simply improve/maintain app support for their old iPhone models.iOS and apps on the two iPads at (2x)132 ppi and 163 ppi screen works fine. But Apple can't launch their new iPhone with a lower pixel density to just go larger or will be murdered by the press.A solution could be to both use an existing resolution (480x320 pts as a basis) and a new retina factor (3x with then 9 pixels per point) but on screens with a new pixel density multiple of 132 ppi.1440x960 @ 400 ppi gives a 4.3" 3:2 screen, not much taller than the current 4" screen but wider, where any current iOS apps would be compatible on day 1, and only waiting for developers and designers to add @3x graphics for the best experience.

So, the cheaper line at something like $429 being a cheapened iPhone 5 in an iPod Touch -like shell with all its A6, LTE, retina 2x 16:9 4" screen and cameras. The high-end line at $649 with new candies and its 25% larger 4.3" 3:2 screen at 400 ppi.And that's it for this year, with next year a price drop on each line by still selling both year n-1 models.

Most people buying the iPhone 4 are probably more buying the iPhone brand than this model for his specs, they are not chosing it but its price (and likely subsidized, I doubt many people pay a brand new iPhone 4 at $450). Hence the 15% only figure of this model's sales among iPhones, when the still better 4S reaches 35% as a cheaper model to choose than the 5 at 50%.The 4S with its old 3.5" 3:2 screen, old A5, no LTE and no Lightning has to disappear though.

On the financial side, the drop in ASP would not have to hit revenues, and lower average margins not hit on profits.With maybe a bit like with iPads something like a 50%/50% repartition, that'd work only with a growth in total of units sold. The high-end line would then have to sell better than the iPhone 5 did this year, and the cheaper line to sell as well, as it could now be a chosen model at a low price in front of the mid-range Android/WP8 phones.

A solution could be to both use an existing resolution (480x320 pts as a basis) and a new retina factor (3x with then 9 pixels per point) but on screens with a new pixel density multiple of 132 ppi.

Retina assets won't scale cleanly to that.

As I was saying after, it would only wait for apps and websites to update. Websites could be a bigger problem, but aren't other smartphones vendors also offering higher pixel densities screens, and LTE is now offering more bandwidth for the heavier/larger bitmap images.And before that, even if a 150% image scaling can't be perfect, the blurriness introduced by the upscaling is partially compensated by the higher pixel density: the image here is not physically 50% larger in each dimension but only 22%. Pixels are small.

The point of "retina®" displays is that the pixels are so small you can't make them out individually. So there's no need for them to be pixel perfect (haha). In other words: at some point the resolution is so high that you stop caring about this kind of stuff. This happened for printers some two decades ago.

And since when does Apple care that developers have to redo their artwork, anyway?

That said, I'm thinking that if Apple wants to increase the iPhone's screen size (a big if) then they wouldn't mind dipping slightly below 300 DPI. (The same logic that underlies the iPad mini, but applied in the opposite direction.) If that isn't enough to get them to where they need to be, they can just increase the screen size in device independent pixels, like they did with the iPhone 5, and have black bars for unupdated applications. This could also give them a 1280x720 screen, which has the advantage that it's officially "HD".

Only by making compromises Apple never would, and it's not clear the extremely high densities provide advantage so much as just having fucking enormous screens that aren't blurry.

If Apple grows the screen, they'll just append pixels and make app store approvals contingent on support for it.

Well, yes, that's possibilities many and myself have explored in this thread (typically, 4.5" 720p at 326 ppi was seen as a good candidate); other propositions for getting larger screens being to lower pixel density with existing resolution. My last post was a variant of the latter.Now, even if Apple might very well prefer to lead than play catch up on specs, smartphones screens with higher pixel densities are and will be more and more common (RGB or not); they can't pass on this I think. IF they want to increase pixel density of their screens, they don't have many solutions, software being one important constraint.

An "easy" one –software speaking– is to switch to retina 4x, but the big problem is likely hardware (battery, perfs, screens themselves at reasonnable price, etc.) and the benefit to go 550+ ppi is probably not huge anyway. Overkill.

An intermediate pixel density between 300 and 500 ppi offers fewer constraints. There is different approaches:Either they choose any arbitrary pixel density and have to redesign and resize every single element displayed on screen (well, iOS 7 will be partly this), and so would have apps devs to. Apps would probably not look quite good in their current state and not be very useable with UI elements either too large (arbitrary upscale + letterbox) or too small (pixels at 1:1 + letterbox), before any heavy update from devs. I'd bet this won't happen.Or, they switch to retina 3x and pick a pixel density between 400 and 500 ppi (3x132 resp. 3x163). The closer they go to 400 ppi, the more they can enlarge their screen surface as a bonus. The higher pixel density is not the only goal but also offers the solution for the screen enlargement, giving an attenuation of blurriness of upscaled bitmaps as users eyes/brain do the rest of the job (1.5x giving the less worse non-integer upscaling factor, with the largest frequency of exact pixels). Before apps updates.

Now, if you prefer, we can also imagine for example to get closer to the golden ratio with a retina 3x 400 ppi 8:5 4.5" screen at 1536x960, to give more work to developpers; anyway, with the upcoming UI redesign, they'll have to work Switching to retina 3x isn't incompatible to also use a new aspect ratio; I was just proposing in my previous post a way to both keep a reasonnably sized screen and existing apps (here 3:2) compatibility from launch.

An "easy" one –software speaking– is to switch to retina 4x, but the big problem is likely hardware (battery, perfs, screens themselves at reasonnable price, etc.) and the benefit to go 550+ ppi is probably not huge anyway. Overkill.

I don't think there's a whole lot of benefit above high 200s.

I think Apple went for 22 because they've never been happy with resolution independence and it has to be clean scaling to keep things pixel perfect. Higher ppi sacrifices clean scaling to no good effect, since no one cares about ppi that high. It would not be a competitive advantage or advantageous to software development, so the correct answer is "fuck it".

Their competitive disadvantage now screen wise has everything to do with size and nothing to do with ppi. The competition has gorgeous, enormous screens on phones that aren't too big to be pocketable, and a lot of people that have tried them think iPhones are cramped. If they address this it will be exactly as they did on iPhone 5, by padding the screen with pixels but keeping the pixels themselves near identical.

Their competitive disadvantage now screen wise has everything to do with size

We agree on that.Now, 2 weeks to maybe have clues or an announcement, who knows.

They won't announce new iOS devices at WWDC.

And the big 1080p screens are beautiful in part because they're so sharp, text is noticeably more crisp than on iOS, especially at small sizes. Cook did what he could to dampen expectations on an expanded iPhone lineup in that interview thing he gave. I think it's foolish not to broaden their market but I'm just a customer.

How small does text have to get to be noticeably sharper? I can notice the pixel artifacts if I zoom out but by that point text is small enough to be effectively illegible (I can still barely read it, but I'd never choose to view text at that size).

How small does text have to get to be noticeably sharper? I can notice the pixel artifacts if I zoom out but by that point text is small enough to be effectively illegible (I can still barely read it, but I'd never choose to view text at that size).

The default zoom level in the Ach, for example. And obviously one of the benefits to a bigger sharper screen is you don't have to zoom in/out so much. Entering text right now is a fairly annoying process because the small visible area of the text box is so cramped and claustrophibic. Sure Ars could have a better mobile interface but...

People act like because 326 dpi (or less) is retina at a certain distance it doesnt need to ever change. Think about laser printers, it's not like they hit a wall at 300 dpi and then stopped. There is always a benefit to more pixels, it's just that there are trade-offs too. If gaming is your primary use case then there's a downside to more pixels like we saw with the iPhone 4 but how many actual users complained about the much nicer screen? And keep in mind they should be able to roll out Rogue this year hopefully which is a much stronger GPU.

Heh, the Ach is what I tested with. As far as this input box...yeah that's all size, and I guess how iOS handles text boxes like this. Some type of phone screen optimized editor view would be nice, like hit a button (or automagically bring up) a special compose sheet.

Otherwise while typing this it reminded me about how annoying moving the insertion point and text selection can be, and the text box size ain't helping.

Edit- After being on another forum a bit, small text is noticeably different when it's light text on a dark background, although that seems like it has just as much to do with Apple's antialiasing of light on dark in general.